smh.com.au
Gaza's Resilience Amidst Genocide: "We Will Remain Here
Amidst a 15-month period of violence described as genocide by international law experts, Gazans sang "We will remain here," a song symbolizing their resilience in the face of widespread destruction and loss, including the repeated targeting of hospitals with 2000-pound bombs, despite predictions that Gaza would be unlivable by 2020.
- What are the long-term implications of the described events for the future of Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
- The author predicts continued resilience among Gazans, emphasizing their determination to rebuild despite the destruction caused by Israeli aggression and the ongoing siege. The focus on rebuilding homes and the emotional connection to the land highlight a defiance against attempts to make Gaza "unliveable.
- How did the international community's response, or lack thereof, shape the events in Gaza and the resilience of its people?
- The widespread destruction in Gaza, including the targeting of hospitals with 2000-pound bombs, is viewed by Palestinians as ethnic cleansing. Despite this, much of the political and media establishment remained silent. The author contrasts this with the vibrant, resilient spirit of Gaza before the attacks, highlighting the city's rebuilding efforts and community spirit even amidst a 17-year siege.
- What were the immediate consequences of the Israeli attacks on Gaza, particularly concerning the civilian population and their response?
- During the 15-month period described by international law experts as genocide, the people of Gaza sang "We will remain here," a song that gained immense popularity, even surpassing the national anthem. This song, initially sung on October 24, 2023, outside al-Awda Hospital after an Israeli evacuation order, reflects the resilience of Gazans facing immense destruction and loss.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing heavily favors the Palestinian perspective, using emotional language and focusing on the destruction and suffering inflicted upon Gazans. Headlines and the overall narrative structure emphasize the alleged genocide and ethnic cleansing, shaping reader perception to sympathize with the Palestinian experience.
Language Bias
The author uses highly charged language, such as "genocide," "ethnic cleansing," and descriptions of gruesome scenes, which evoke strong emotions and could sway the reader's opinion. Terms like "wiped off the map" are hyperbolic and lack neutrality. More neutral alternatives could include describing the destruction using factual statistics and avoiding inflammatory language.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of Israeli perspectives and justifications for their actions in Gaza. While acknowledging the suffering of Palestinians, it doesn't present a balanced view of the conflict's complexities. This omission limits the reader's ability to form a fully informed opinion.
False Dichotomy
The narrative presents a stark dichotomy between Palestinian resilience and Israeli aggression, overlooking the nuances and complexities of the conflict. It frames the situation as a simple case of ethnic cleansing and ignores potential mitigating factors or alternative interpretations of Israeli actions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article details the destruction caused by the Israeli forces in Gaza, resulting in significant loss of life and infrastructure damage. This directly contradicts the SDG target of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all and building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. The ethnic cleansing and targeting of civilians are clear violations of international law and human rights, undermining peace and justice.